What happens to BVR when it goes into stealth vs stealth combat?

Ahhh, now to get back to my questions hounding me about the dogfighters. I was looking back at the "Whats the deal with the SU-47" thread, and I
found a subtle comment which intrigued me greatly. What happens when countrys start making their own stealth platforms. What happens when stealth is
the norm among aircraft? How will this render the Air Force's idea that dogfighting is done? If the aircraft are invisible to radar what is it going
to be like, when you cant rely on your missile to take them out 100 miles ahead? So will it be ultramaneuverable stealth badassedness?

Which is why missiles never took over. Especially with stealth vs. stealth, it would be a classic dogfight: four eyes, tow brains, two guns.
Thrust vectoring will only be as good as those who use it well, so I wouldn't be so quick to place it in such high regard. Remember, English
Electric Lightnings proved very troublesome to F-16 pilots in mock combat, despite being larger and 20 years older. And despite having a great radar,
in Korea, the F-94 was useless against MiG-15s because it was too fast(!) Just because it's the latest technology, dosen't mean it's always going
to be superior in a fight. When it comes down to it, pilot training will be the greatest factor. That's why Top Gun and Red Flag were formed.
Besides, the F-23 wasn't meant to win anyway. The requirement advocated vectored thrust, and Northrop decided against it. A deal killer from the
start. Or was there more to that plane than we know about....

You develop your electronic attack capabilities to make sure the other guy doesn't get first shot opportunity, you target his situational awareness
building networks while protecting and enhancing your own so that you can use your network (ISREW and C2) to detect him in other ways, you find out
where he is "unstealthy" and target that (killing pilots on the ground is always good fun, and something SF guys enjoy doing), you develop microwave
and laser weapons that provide battlespace dominance by having a next to zero time of flight, and you develop cheap, autonomous swarming drones that
they have to fight through just to get a chance to do whatever it is that they want to do, and probably forcing them to lose their stealth and combat
range anyway. But I have a feeling another member of the forum will have a bit more to say on the whole drone/high energy weapons topic, and I'd hate
to steal his 10 000 lines of thunder.

This question and subsequent opinions are predicated on the concept that the US does not possess any counter-low observable (CLO) radars or sensors.
The opposite is closer to the truth.

You don't see or hear about these systems because there is no firm threat or requirement which would require them to be rolled out and fielded. But
trust me, they exist, and are highly successful.

In a LO vs LO combat aircraft exchange, the US aircraft will have the advantage of early cueing information and most probably a pre-planned fire
control solution. And the US aircraft will also have the added advantage of CLO AAW weapons.

The F22 will be turned into a bomb truck and the USA will start developing a decent fighter. That's what happened with the F-4, it happened to the
F-15 and it will happen to the F22. And when they are ready with the replacement... it will be lacking as well.

Originally posted by Murcielago
yeah...and its allready in service, the F-22. Its thrust vectoring & gun make it still able to win even against another stealth aircraft. I think
the YF-23 lost because of that very reason.

Ironically - that's something about the F-23 that few people are aware of. The lack of thrust vectoring and use of ducted thrust actually increases
its ability to use its abnormal geometry to out-maneuver anything there is. The F-23 out-maneuvered the F-22 every way possible except for at really
low airspeeds - where the thrust-vectoring had an advantage.

The F-23 would also have had a mounted gun - that's been standard ever since they noticed that the F-4 started suffering really bad casualties when
they removed the gun off of it.

The F-23 is a very deceptive looking aircraft. It was faster, more agile, had a greater range, a lower profile/RCS, and the production model would
have had an additional 2 AMRAAM hardpoints - giving it a bigger bite. Nothing yet created by man has surpassed the YF-23 in its blistering
performance.

That - and it was a much more pretty looking fighter... the F-22 is a repackaged F-15.

That - and it(F-23) was a much more pretty looking fighter... the F-22 is a repackaged F-15.

Couldn't agree with you more. Although this can hardly be a compliment. I mean even the Typhoon looks better than the F-22, ...and the Typhoon is
very ugly...
But the F-23 is really one of the coolest looking birds ever to come out of the US.
I don't like the shape of the wings very much but I guess you have to sacrifice looks for stealth.

Originally posted by Aim64C
Ironically - that's something about the F-23 that few people are aware of. The lack of thrust vectoring and use of ducted thrust actually increases
its ability to use its abnormal geometry to out-maneuver anything there is. The F-23 out-maneuvered the F-22 every way possible except for at really
low airspeeds - where the thrust-vectoring had an advantage.

Could you please explain how it managed that.

The F-22 has:

- Larger control surfaces [and ailerons/elevons operating in conjunction].
- Its main heavy components (i.e. the engines) mostly concentrated along its longitudinal axis [allowing faster roll accelerations].
- Use of forebody & engine inlets as LERX mk 2, whereas the YF-23 only has its forebody, the vortex travel path of the F-22 is also over the wing
itself, and not over the engine... "nacelle" of the YF-23.
- The TVC allows retrimming of the elevators at supersonic speed [to compensate for the move in aerodynamic centre] this allows them to retain full
authority in both directions, giving much superior supersonic manouvre performance to any non-TVC trimmable aircraft.

There is of course some areas where the YF-23 is better, but manouvering is not one of them. "Ducted" thrust offers absolutely no benefits to
manouvering whatsoever over a standard axisymmetric engine nozzle - indeed, its almost certainly a hinderance as its efficiency is somewhat reduced
[due to losses on the duct surface itself].

Originally posted by Murcielago
yeah...and its allready in service, the F-22. Its thrust vectoring & gun make it still able to win even against another stealth aircraft. I think
the YF-23 lost because of that very reason.

The US has a distinct technical advantage in regard to CLO development since they have LO assets on which to test their CLO
hardware/software/methodologies.

The international competitors who are also developing CLO technology have stated that they test it on B-2's when they are flying to and from bases in
England.
The problem with this claim is that the B-2's have an artificially enhanced radar sig when they are ferrying about and consequently one has to wonder
how accurate said competitor's claims are.

One thing is for sure however, the result of the U.S.'s developmental advantage is that the F-22's AN/APG-77 radar can detect and track airborne LO
targets at range while it's LPI radar signal is more than a challenge to detect by every known potential adversary.

Originally posted by intelgurl
The US has a distinct technical advantage in regard to CLO development since they have LO assets on which to test their CLO
hardware/software/methodologies.

The international competitors who are also developing CLO technology have stated that they test it on B-2's when they are flying to and from bases in
England.
The problem with this claim is that the B-2's have an artificially enhanced radar sig when they are ferrying about and consequently one has to wonder
how accurate said competitor's claims are.

One thing is for sure however, the result of the U.S.'s developmental advantage is that the F-22's AN/APG-77 radar can detect and track airborne LO
targets at range while it's LPI radar signal is more than a challenge to detect by every known potential adversary.

So what you're saying is, the F-22A can see other stealths, but it can't be seen itself?

Originally posted by intelgurl
The US has a distinct technical advantage in regard to CLO development since they have LO assets on which to test their CLO
hardware/software/methodologies.

The international competitors who are also developing CLO technology have stated that they test it on B-2's when they are flying to and from bases in
England.
The problem with this claim is that the B-2's have an artificially enhanced radar sig when they are ferrying about and consequently one has to wonder
how accurate said competitor's claims are.

One thing is for sure however, the result of the U.S.'s developmental advantage is that the F-22's AN/APG-77 radar can detect and track airborne LO
targets at range while it's LPI radar signal is more than a challenge to detect by every known potential adversary.

Surely the key element of such a radar is not the emitter, or even the reciever, but the software and CPU for getting rid of clutter to allow tracking
of such targets. The emitter/reciever and wavelengths used are limited by the laws of physics after all.

Point being, its not hard to nick software (for a large country with extensive intelligence assets).

Also, with Moore's law continuing its seemingly unending march, newer onboard computers in adverseries don't have to be as efficient as they can
rely on brute force to achieve the same end product.

I feel it would be inherently risky to assume that an F-22 will be able to run around with its radar on without a high risk of detection. Such
overconfidence can be a fatal error, after all, the Nazi's did think their Enigma codes were unbreakable.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
I feel it would be inherently risky to assume that an F-22 will be able to run around with its radar on without a high risk of detection. Such
overconfidence can be a fatal error, after all, the Nazi's did think their Enigma codes were unbreakable.

true pride comes before a fall but it was my understanding that an enigma device was captured which allowed the british to crack the enigma code and i
dont think that therew ill be many f-22s in enemy hands.

So what you're saying is, the F-22A can see other stealths, but it can't be seen itself?

I would stop just short of saying that - let's say it can't be seen by any known airborne (fighter) radar at range, at this writing with one
exception: Raptors can see Raptors.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Surely the key element of such a radar is not the emitter, or even the reciever, but the software and CPU for getting rid of clutter to allow tracking
of such targets. The emitter/reciever and wavelengths used are limited by the laws of physics after all.

It can become pretty obvious if you read up on the 77 with an understanding of known CLO techniques.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
I feel it would be inherently risky to assume that an F-22 will be able to run around with its radar on without a high risk of detection. Such
overconfidence can be a fatal error, after all, the Nazi's did think their Enigma codes were unbreakable.

I would not presume to know USAF SOP where the Raptor is concerned, I am sure they are training to be as stealthy as possible, not as fool-hardy as
possible. What I do know is that the 77 is a very versatile package.

Originally posted by justin_barton3
true pride comes before a fall but it was my understanding that an enigma device was captured which allowed the british to crack the enigma code and i
dont think that therew ill be many f-22s in enemy hands.

justin

Yup, sure it was all shown in that film... U-571?

No full pukka F-22s I agree, but no software or individual components?

edit: Might as well put it in this post. The radar [APG-77] is freq agile of course, enabling longer wavelength [lower freq] pulses to be used for
scaning, but for tracking that wavelength needs shortened to improve resolution, and that is where the antennae gain needs jumped up, and the
resulting clutter has to be removed.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.